Find Buk employees by name, email, ficha ID or document, returning a compact directory with match flags so you can confirm identity before acting.
Find Buk employees by name, email, ficha ID or document. Returns a minimized directory and flags multiple matches; never guesses which person is intended.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the response is a minimized directory and ambiguous lookups are flagged rather than resolved arbitrarily. It does not cover pagination/limit behavior, which keeps it from a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two dense sentences with the lookup keys front-loaded and the ambiguity contract stated last. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be cut without losing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only search with no output schema, the description adequately characterizes the return (a minimized directory, with multiple matches flagged). The remaining gap is the unspecified status filter and default/maximum result count.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It usefully explains what the 'query' parameter accepts (name, email, ficha ID or document), but says nothing about 'limit' or the activo/inactivo/pendiente 'status' filter, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb plus resource (find Buk employees) and enumerates the four lookup keys (name, email, ficha ID, document). The sibling tools are all in unrelated domains (payroll, operations, salary), so there is no real ambiguity to disambiguate from.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The search keys imply when to reach for this tool (resolving a person from any identifier), and 'never guesses which person is intended' hints at the multi-match workflow. However, it never states when not to use it or names an alternative for enumerating employees, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.